On 4 Oct 2012, at 1:05 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
> I am still puzzled, though, why uClinux is silent when a program is aborted
> when it receives an unhandled fatal signal. Mainline Linux (really the
> shell?) prints out a message like
>
>> [root@atompc sdk]# ./SIGILL
>> Illegal instruction
>
>
Enabling kernel parameter print-fatal-signals worked out nicely:
> / # echo 1 >/proc/sys/kernel/print-fatal-signals
> / # trap
> trap/82: potentially unexpected fatal signal 4.
>
>
> Format 04 Vector: 009c PC: 4052812e Status: Not tainted
> ORIG_D0: D0: 405285c8 A2: 40529f6
Geert,
On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> I'm still looking for the conditions it takes to have something like
>> show_registers() in arch/m68k/kernel/traps.c called when the trap occurs.
>
> The registers are only printed for exceptions caused in kernel mode.
The print-f
Hi Larry,
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Larry Baker wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
>>> I'm still looking for the conditions it takes to have something like
>>> show_registers() in arch/m68k/kernel/traps.c called when the trap occurs.
>>
>> The registers are on
Geert,
On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> I'm still looking for the conditions it takes to have something like
>> show_registers() in arch/m68k/kernel/traps.c called when the trap occurs.
>
> The registers are only printed for exceptions caused in kernel mode.
Is this a d
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
> > It would be pretty easy to just add a whole bunch of debug trace in
> > the kernel when you get this - just for debugging purposes of course.
> > Probably makes no sense for a user space process to catch the SIGILL
> > in this case. You are o
Hi Larry,
On 10/04/2012 11:16 AM, Larry Baker wrote:
On 3 Oct 2012, at 3:06 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
In the mean time, I'll try using _end instead of __stack_start for the stack
limit symbol.
gcc -fstack-limit-symbol=_end works.
I don't know the ld scripting language. I will try to figure
Greg,
On 3 Oct 2012, at 3:06 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
> In the mean time, I'll try using _end instead of __stack_start for the stack
> limit symbol.
gcc -fstack-limit-symbol=_end works.
> I don't know the ld scripting language. I will try to figure out how to
> define __start_stack to have the
Greg,
As far as my task 2) to properly detect stack overflow, I think the source of
my problem is that the __stack_start symbol is not correctly defined.
I found the flthdr -k option to enable the FLAT_FLAG_KTRACE flag for printing
the executable layout.
> # toolchains/freescale-coldfire-2011
Greg,
On 3 Oct 2012, at 12:00 AM, Greg Ungerer wrote:
For stack checking to be useful, I need two things: 1) it has to detect the
(preferably impending) occurrence of a stack overflow, and 2) it has to give
notice that it has occurred.
For task 2), I'm trying to figure out how to enable the ty
Hi Larry,
On 03/10/12 10:45, Larry Baker wrote:
I don't recall off-hand what you will see by forcing a trap 7.
But it is easy to check, try a strait trap 7 call in a test program.
I hacked the .s file to force a trap #7. That looked like a normal program
exit -- no messages on the console, n
Greg,
> I don't recall off-hand what you will see by forcing a trap 7.
> But it is easy to check, try a strait trap 7 call in a test program.
I hacked the .s file to force a trap #7. That looked like a normal program
exit -- no messages on the console, nothing in dmesg or /var/log/messages.
I
Hi Larry,
On 09/27/2012 10:08 AM, Larry Baker wrote:
I hacked the .s file for my stack check test program.
I haven't had a minute to look over the code yet. Will get back to
you on that.
[snip]
There must be code between __stack_start and the initial stack pointer. Yes?
No code in that r
Hi Larry,
On 27/09/12 06:25, Larry Baker wrote:
On 09/26/2012 12:49 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
I have been chasing what I suspect are stack overflows in NTP. I spotted
mention of that there was a gcc option, -fstack-check-symbol=__stack_start, for
run-time stack checking on uClinux. I tried tha
Greg,
I hacked the .s file for my stack check test program.
The C code:
> # cat stack-overflow.c#include
>
> void overflow( int i ) {
>
> /* Allocate automatic array j[256] so stack limit checking works. */
>
>int j[256];
>
> /* Stack limit checking tests only whether the stack is large
Greg,
> Hi Larry,
>
> On 09/26/2012 12:49 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
>> I have been chasing what I suspect are stack overflows in NTP. I spotted
>> mention of that there was a gcc option, -fstack-check-symbol=__stack_start,
>> for run-time stack checking on uClinux. I tried that, but it caused an
Hi Larry,
On 09/26/2012 12:49 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
I have been chasing what I suspect are stack overflows in NTP. I spotted
mention of that there was a gcc option, -fstack-check-symbol=__stack_start, for
run-time stack checking on uClinux. I tried that, but it caused an internal
compiler
17 matches
Mail list logo
